These are the bulk of the defence points which should be included.
As already advised, please read through some other threads which deal with providing a defence submission.
Please ensure that you are vaguely familiar with the process since it is not entirely complex and is designed for a litigant in person rather than a legal professional.
Give it a few days for others to add further if needed - in my opinion, this is a decent skeleton defence - more can be added in the Witness Statement if needed.
I strongly suspect that the parking operator will NOT want to provide the official plan since such a plan would destroy their business at this location.
Southgate Park Defence Points
That the claim is denied in its entirety and that no debt is owed.
It is acknowledged that I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle specifically mentioned in the Claim Form.
In the first instance, the vehicle driver is not known by the claimant.
That this is a contract dispute and, as such, there is absolutely no legal requirement for a Registered Keeper to reveal driver details to an unregulated private parking contractor.
As such, I will not be providing any driver details and no presumption can be drawn from me simply exercising my legal right.
That the land, mentioned by he Claimant, at Southgate Park, Stansted is clearly inside the boundary of the Stansted Airport Area.
That all the land inside the Stansted Airport Area is designated, by the Government, as being Land Under Statutory Control and, as such, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 cannot be used at this particular location as this location is not 'relevant land' as defined under PoFA 2012.
That a Statutory Instrument exists and is legally in place.
That this Statutory Instrument is known as 'The Stansted - London Byelaws'.
That the Statutory Instrument sets out parking controls within the Land Under Statutory Control.
That the 'Statutory Control' mentioned in the term 'Land Under Statutory Control' is the Statutory Instrument and, as such, by definition, the Statutory Instrument covers the entire area of Land Under Statutory Control.
That while the land at Southgate Park is privately owned, it remains within the official Airport Area and therefore remains under the control of the Statutory Instrument.
The Claimant has stated (in previous communications) that the land at Southgate Park is no longer within the designated area under statutory control and that, consequently, PoFA 2012 can in fact be used to establish Keeper Liability at the location.
That I therefore put the Claimant to STRICT PROOF to provide, to the Court, a formal Airport Plan document provided by either the LOCAL AUTHORITY or the GOVERNMENT which shows the claimed revised airport area boundary which specifically excludes the land at Southgate Park.
That the airport plan often used, by the claimant, in the parking appeals process will not be accepted since that plan specifically excludes land not owned by the airport operator - meaning; that even if the land at Southgate Park was inside the Airport Area it would never be shown on that particular plan.
That, as PoFA 2012 cannot be used at Southgate Park, the Claimant is unable to move liability from the unknown driver onto the Registered Keeper.
That, with both the driver unknown and, no keeper liability, there is no legal route by which the Claimant can hold me liable.
The Claim is therefore denied in its entirety.
Additional defence points which the Court should be made aware of;
That the Claimant's issued Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) are in clear breach of the parking operators Code of Practice since the PCNs specifically mention PoFA Keeper Liability.
The operators Code of Practice EXPRESSLY PROHIBBITS operators specifying keeper liability under PoFA 2012 when PoFA cannot apply.
A breach of the Code of Practice is automatically a breach of the operator's KADOE Agreement with the DVLA since that agreement specifically requires that the operator agree to follow the Code of Practice.
My details have therefore been obtained in breach of the KADOE Agreement.
That this also constitutes a misuse of personal data.
